48 Fla. L. Weekly D2172d PEOPLE’S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. PAUL GUNSSER, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. 6th District. Case No. 6D23-492. L.T. Case No. 20-CA-002396. November 9, 2023. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County. Sherra Winesett, Judge. Counsel: Mark D. Tinker and Francesca M. Stein, of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Mark […]
Articles
Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Argument — New trial — Action involving insured who had been seeking past medical expenses throughout trial before withdrawing that claim the day before closing arguments — Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying insurer’s motion for new trial alleging that insured’s closing argument statement that, because insured was not seeking past medical expenses, insured’s medical experts did not have a “dog in the fight” had made jurors think that insurer misled them about the financial interests of insured’s witnesses and eviscerated insurer’s theme of the entire case, which was based on the bias and credibility of insured’s medical experts — Even if comments were misleading, comments were isolated and not so highly prejudicial and inflammatory that they deprived insurer of a fair trial
48 Fla. L. Weekly D2168a STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. CORA MATTHEWS, Appellee. 5th District. Case No. 5D22-1190. L.T. Case No. 2015-CA-000533. November 9, 2023. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Flagler County. Christopher A. France, Judge. Counsel: Warren B. Kwavnick, of The Law Office of Warren B. Kwavnick, PLLC, Pembroke […]
Insurance — Commercial property — Hurricane damage — Appraisal — Ripeness — Supplemental claims — Trial court did not err in granting insured’s motion to stay litigation and compel appraisal of claim related to losses caused by a hurricane — Claim was ripe for appraisal where insurer admitted coverage for insured’s initial roof claim, and claim remained open for adjustment when insured later reported additional damage to windows and doors pursuant to the policy — A subsequent claim should be treated as part of the initial claim if the insurer has accepted coverage for the initial claim and the claim has not been settled — Parties’ disagreement as to whether the insurer was required to pay for additional claimed damages is an amount-of-loss issue for appraisal to resolve, not a coverage issue
48 Fla. L. Weekly D2027a HERITAGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. WELLINGTON PLACE HOA, INC., Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D2022-2749. September 13, 2023. Appeal of a nonfinal order from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Gerard Joseph Curley, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502022CA001822. Counsel: Jeffrey A. Rubinton […]
Torts — Automobile accident — Damages — Setoff — Collateral sources — Settlement agreements — Insurance — Bad faith — Appeals — Preservation of issue — Issue of whether defendant was entitled to setoff of settlement proceeds under section 768.041(2) was not preserved for appellate review where defendant relied entirely on section 768.76 — Trial court’s mere awareness of case law discussing 768.041(2), without any accompanying argument, did not put statute in play for preservation purposes — Settlement payment made by an uninsured motorist insurer to settle a first-party bad faith claim was not a collateral source within the meaning of section 768.76(2)(a)2. — Payment of bad faith damages does not meet statutory definition of “collateral source” because it is not a payment of “benefits”
48 Fla. L. Weekly S213b ALBERTA S. ELLISON, Petitioner, v. RANDY WILLOUGHBY, Respondent. Supreme Court of Florida. Case No. SC2021-1580. November 2, 2023. Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal Certified Great Public Importance/Direct Conflict of Decisions. Second District — Case No. 2D19-1961 (Hillsborough County). Counsel: Paul L. Nettleton and […]
Torts — Rear end collision — Negligent entrustment — Employer — Appeal from judgment finding employer liable and awarding damages to estates of four women who were rear-ended by employer’s driver — Finality — District court’s order dismissing claim against driver satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), which allows district court to dismiss an action by court order at a plaintiff’s request, even though stipulation of voluntary dismissal was not signed by all parties who appeared in the action, as required by rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — Because judgment entered against employer disposed of all claims against all remaining parties, appellate court had jurisdiction over employer’s appeal — On the merits, employer was not entitled to judgment as matter of law on estates’ negligent entrustment claim because there was sufficient evidence for jury to find that employer negligently entrusted rear-ending driver with truck modified to carry large water and sewage tank — There was sufficient evidence for jury to find that defendant knew that the modified truck had a dangerous condition yet allowed one who was not aware of this dangerous condition to use it, and that an accident occurred because of that condition — Employer could be separately liable for entrusting truck to driver and vicariously liable for driver’s negligence — Jury instructions — Negligence — Rebuttable presumption — Any error in instructing jury on Florida’s presumption that a driver who rear-ends another vehicle was negligent was harmless where district court did not misstate the law or mislead the jury to the prejudice of defendant as the objecting party — Moreover, estates were entitled to a directed verdict where defendant did not produce evidence rebutting presumption that rear-ending driver was negligent and defendant actually benefitted from that error when district court submitted issue of driver’s negligence to jury rather than entering directed verdict in estates’ favor — Evidence — Expert — Accident reconstructionist — Demonstrative aids — District court did not abuse its discretion in permitting accident reconstruction expert to publish an accident-reconstruction animation contained in his demonstrative aid Power-Point because it was not so confusing or misleading that it should have been excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 — Any untimely disclosure of the demonstrative aid did not substantially prejudice defendant’s defense
30 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C357a RICARDO SANCHEZ, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Teresa Sanchez Quetglas, ELIA BONFANTE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ana Gaitan Diaz, FRANCISCO CORTES, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Margarita Cortes-Pardo, JULIO LOPEZ-BERMEJO ROSSELLO, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Maria Lopez-Bermejo Rossello, Plaintiffs-Appellees, […]